Glenn Beck: Who was against Slaughter rule in 2005?



Glenn Beck's American Revival


Glenn Beck's American Revival is a daylong event where you can find information, inspiration, and the preparation to help turn this country around...


 - Tickets now available!

GLENN: I want to play Robert Gibbs and the audio that happened yesterday. Who is asking him this question yesterday, Pat?

PAT: One of the reporters on at MS I mean I think NBC.

GLENN: NBC reporter.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Asked Robert Gibbs about the Slaughter rule which will be the way they pass healthcare without voting on it. So, in other words, you don't have to vote on it. You just pass this little Slaughter rule and it will it will say it's like we passed it. Now, I don't know for the life of me how anyone is dumb enough to think the American people aren't going to remember that and how these people are actually going to try to look you in the eye and say, oh, no, no, no, I didn't vote for that. I just voted for the Slaughter rule. No, I didn't vote for healthcare reform. I'm thinking about this and I hear Robert Gibbs and this exchange.

VOICE: Do you believe the Deem and Pass scenario constitutes an up or down vote?

GIBBS: I think that I think that you're going to ask people how they stand on healthcare. You're not going to ask them how they stand on Deem and Pass. You're going to have a vote count that constructs not the process for the rule but where you are on healthcare.

GLENN: Stop, stop, stop. Then why would you do Deem and Pass? Why would you do that? We're going to ask about healthcare, not Deem and Pass. Remember, first they wanted to do it by the the right way. First Barack Obama says, you know, there's no way you can do this with 51 votes because you won't be able to rule like that. You won't be able to rule like that, won't be able to govern like that. So, we can't do it where 51 votes. Well, they couldn't do it with 60. Now they're just trying to do it with 51 votes. They couldn't get 51 votes. So, then they decide, well, we'll just do reconciliation. We'll just we'll just pass it by the House. Well, no, no. Then that wouldn't work. So, then what? So, then they go from reconciliation to Deem and Pass, the Slaughter rule. But before they say that, they say we just want a straight up or down. We just want a straight or or down vote, yes or no. We just thumbs up, thumbs down. They can't get that. Deem and Pass. By hook or by crook, anyway they can and she pushes him on it.

Voice: up or down vote, you would be satisfied with this Deem and Pass bill?

GIBBS: I think that again, I think that again, I think there are many that would want to inflate this process into something that's different than the product.

VOICE: Pelosi said, and I'm quoting, I like it, this scenario, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill.

GIBBS: I would ask for

VOICE: (Inaudible.)

GIBBS: I would ask one of her capable spokespeople on what she had to say.

VOICE: Okay. Wait all right. But would you say there seems to be some inconsistency between what she says and having an up or down vote?

GIBBS: (Inaudible.)

VOICE: Okay. Then real quickly do you would you agree that it exacerbates the perception that his is a dirty or underhanded process?

GIBBS: No, no. Of course not.

VOICE: And, now, scattered showers of journalism.

GLENN: Well, it was.

PAT: It was.

GLENN: Yeah. It was nice. It was somebody from NBC, too.

PAT: Savannah Guthrie is her name and for him to say, as you just went through the whole process of how they've been trying to get this thing passed and then for them to do this sleazy maneuver and claim that nobody cares about the process, it's just don't even worry about the process. The process isn't important. It's just whether or not we get this thing passed.

GLENN: We played the audio of Chuck Schumer yesterday. Can we play the audio again? Here's Chuck Schumer behind closed doors in a conference on you know, look. There's a lot of things that we can do and not just on this but, you know, sure, we need we need two thirds to be able to pass anything, you know, to change any of the rules in the Constitution but we've got some other ideas. Here he is.

SCHUMER: This is something that people have looked at (inaudible.) So, you can't just rush it out. You have to really study it carefully and that's what the hearing (inaudible) and the rules committee who has jurisdiction over what this is intended to. There have been some very interesting papers written that said that the Constitutional right, for instance, of the Senate to make its own rules supercedes the two thirds that you can't change the rules but only when Congress writes new rules at the beginning of each Congress, every two year period where we reorganize ourselves.

PAT: Wow.

SCHUMER: That's something we want to explore.

PAT: I'll bet. I'll bet.

GLENN: That's, by the way, exclusive audio, taped by the friend of the program. There's exclusive audio for you of we'll play by any rules that we want. Now, here's, here's where I want to go. I want you to listen to this. This is the fundamental transformation of America. This is it. This is it. The reason why this is hook or crook is because they've got to they will do whatever they can, because all of their power is here. It is in this bill. This is it. This is the moment of transformation.

Now, I ask you to do two things. First it you to answer does it make sense that they would pass this in way, shape, or form and they would blame it on the Republicans. They're not bribing the Republicans. I don't know if they know this, but Dennis Kucinich is not a republican. They're bribing the Democrats. There won't be a single republican voting for this bill and if there is, that republican will be voted out of office, guaranteed. So, this is a 100% democratic bill. The benefits don't start in until between 2014 and 2015. Your tax burdens and everything else begin immediately. So, how do they expect to be reelected?

Now, I guess the answer be can be, well, because they think we're stupid and maybe that's it. Maybe that's it. But I think it is more likely that this has so much power and control in it, they're not worried about elections. But if it is this important and it is going to tear this country in half, it is going to destroy healthcare. If it is truly this important and you truly believe in it, put your name on it; but they don't want to do that. Nancy Pelosi likes this idea because that way you don't have to have your name on it. Let me just read portions of the last part of the Declaration of Independence.

In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is, thus, marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of free people. Nor have we been wanting inattentions for our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend the unwarrantable justification of jurisdictions over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our immigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice. We have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow the use of these usurpations. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice. We, therefore, must denounce our separation, hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace, friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world, do in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, do solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent.

Now, when they write that it ought to be totally dissolved, that they now have all the power, these men, no different than the members of Congress now except maybe in honor and integrity and spine. They knew when they signed this it was not that they were going to be voted out of office when they signed this after they had done everything they could. When they signed this, they knew it would be a death warrant! We will hang together or we will hang separately, but we will hang. And one by one they put their name on it. John Hancock's signature is the size that he the is because he said he wanted the king to be able to see his name without putting his spectacles on. They knew it was a death warrant and this Congress is so unlike any Congress we have ever had. This Congress is so unlike our founders that they don't even want their name on healthcare! The first Congress, which was no different, it had its bad apples in it, it had its problems, they wrote, and in support of this declaration with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. What do you think they meant by protection? It wasn't SEIU they were worried about being protected from. It wasn't the unions that they thought would protect them. They were worried about their own life and they knew God would protect them, because they were living and doing moral and just things, out in the open, with their names on it. That's why they could, in the end, in the last line before their names, and in support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

We did our homework over the weekend; we did the research so we can tell you what is likely coming from Senate Democrats regarding President Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Based on our research and the anonymous people who have already come forward to talk about Coney Barrett's youth, these are the main shocking things you can expect Senate Democrats to seize on during the confirmation process…

A man has come forward under the banner of "#MenToo," to say that in second grade, Amy Coney Barrett and her best friend at the time, cornered him at a birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese and "injected him with a full dose of cooties." Which, if true, would obviously be disqualifying for serving on the highest court in the land.

Then there's a woman who says when she was nine-years-old, she lived on the same street as Amy Coney Barrett. She alleges that Coney-Barrett borrowed her VHS tape of Herbie Goes Bananas and did not return it for at least six months. And then when she did finally get the tape back, the woman says Coney Barrett did not even bother to rewind it. The FBI has interviewed at least two witnesses so far who say the tape was indeed not rewound and that it was very upsetting to the owner of the tape. Again, if true, this is troubling – clearly not the kind of integrity you want to see in a Supreme Court justice.

Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it.

The same neighbor also dropped a bombshell allegation about the drinking problem of Amy Coney Barrett and her closest friends. Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it. The neighbor says she "frequently" witnessed Coney-Barrett and her friends chugging entire cartons of milk – often Whole Milk, sometimes Chocolate Milk, occasionally both at the same time through a funnel.

Unfortunately, shooting-up cooties, injurious rewinding, and potential calcium-abuse are not even the worst of it.

A third person has now come forward, another man, and this is just reprehensible, it's hard to even fathom. But he alleges that in fourth grade, when they were around ten-years-old, Amy Coney Barrett and a group of "four or five of her friends" gang-GRAPED him on the playground during recess. He alleges the group of friends snuck uneaten grapes out of the cafeteria and gang-GRAPED him repeatedly in broad daylight. In other words, and I hate to have to spell this out because it's kind of graphic, but the group led by ten-year-old Amy Coney Barrett pelted this poor defenseless boy with whole grapes. He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

Obviously, even if just one of these allegations is half-true, no Senator with a conscience could possibly vote to confirm Coney Barrett. When there is a clear pattern of destructive childhood behavior, it always continues into adulthood. Because people do not change. Ever.

Fortunately, for the sake of the Republic, Democrats plan to subpoena Coney Barrett's childhood diary, to see what, if any, insights it may provide into her calcium habits, as well as her abuse of illicit cooties and the gang-GRAPING incident.

We will keep you posted on the latest, but for now, it looks like Democrats will find plenty in the reckless pre-teen life of Amy Coney Barrett to cast doubt on her nomination. And if not, they can always fall back on her deranged preference for letting babies be born.

[NOTE: The preceding was a parody written by MRA writer Nathan Nipper.]

On the radio program Friday, Glenn Beck discussed the recent news that a primary source for the Steele Dossier — the document on which much of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation was based — had been investigated by the FBI for contacts with suspected Russian spies. Glenn also shared several previously unpublished texts and emails from FBI agents have recently been released.

According to a letter sent by Attorney General William Barr to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, the FBI knew early on that the research compiled by ex-British intelligence agent Christopher Steele relied on a "Primary Sub-source" that had been "the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his or her contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers" — but still used it to obtain warrants to spy on former Trump campaign-aide Carter Page.

But, it gets even worse. Now, new leaked texts and communications from FBI agents within the department at the time of the entire Russian collusion effort were disclosed in federal court filings on Thursday. According to the court documents, FBI agents purchased "professional liability insurance" to protect themselves in January 2017, just weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated president, because they were concerned about the agency's potentially illegal activity during the Russia collusion investigation.

"Trump was right," one FBI employee wrote in response to then-President-elect Trump's Jan 3, 2017 tweet which read: "The 'Intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Chief researcher Jason Buttrill joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to discuss an "explosive" new report released Wednesday by Senate Republicans on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Among other serious allegations, the 87-page report claims that "Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow," and the richest woman in Russia.

"The transactions discussed [in the report] are designed to illustrate the depth and extent of some questionable financial transactions. Moreover, the financial transactions illustrate serious counterintelligence and extortion concerns relating to Hunter Biden and his family," the report stated.

Jason suggested the Senate's findings provide additional evidence to back allegations of a money-laundering scheme, which Glenn detailed in a four-part series about Biden's shady connections to Ukraine. Learn more on this here.

"Laundered money is very hard to track to its finality," Jason explained. "I'm sure the Biden camp is really hoping that it just looks suspicious, but [investigators] don't ever find the eventual end point. But, if they do – and it's possible they already have – this is going to be explosive, very explosive."

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Revolutions rarely happen overnight. The Left started laying the groundwork for November 3, 2020, the moment Hillary Clinton had to concede the 2016 election to Donald Trump. It was always solely about getting rid of President Trump — and there's a playbook for that.

Last week, Glenn Beck showed you the "Seven Pillars of Color Revolution" written by a former U.S. diplomat, which are the conditions that must be in place for a successful Eastern European-style "Color Revolution." The left seems to be pushing for a Color Revolution this election because they are using the exact same playbook.

In part two of this series, Glenn peels back the layers on the first four of these Color Revolution pillars to show you how they work and what the end goal is. And he reveals one of the architects of the playbook – a Color Revolution specialist, former ambassador, and former Obama administration official who is one of the key masterminds of this revolution.

Joining Glenn is political campaign veteran and BlazeTV host Steve Deace who says the polls that claim Biden is leading the race "are trash." We're being set up to believe that if Trump wins in spite of the polls, it must be an invalid election.

Watch the full video below:


WATCH all of Glenn's Specials on BlazeTV:

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Save $10 with promo code GLENN.